The Instigator
preprurmind
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

This house would ban the smoking of cigarettes

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...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,158 times Debate No: 79525
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

preprurmind

Pro

Round 1 : Acceptance
Round 2 : Introduction/Arguments
Round 3 : Rebuttals
Round 4 : Conclusion

(sort of new to this)
I look forward to debating with the person who accepts, good luck to both of us!
lannan13

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
preprurmind

Pro

In the motion this house would ban the smoking of cigarettes: What I mean is that the smoking of cigarettes should be completely prohibited. To smoke is to emit "a suspension of particles in a gas." The objective of this house is to prove that we should indeed ban the smoking of cigarettes with the central question that is "Should we ban the smoking of cigarettes?

This house says yes; we should ban the smoking of cigarettes. The proposition gives out two reasons on why we should ban cigarettes, namely:

I.) Smoking is dangerous for everyone.

II.) Second-hand smoke kills innocent bystanders.

Aside from that, there is also the fact that smoking is preventable.

I. Smoking is dangerous for everyone.
Smoke coming from smoking cigarettes is extremely dangerous, and it affects people around a smoker the smoker himself. It is said by the national cancer institute that cigarettes contain over 7000 chemicals, 250 of which are deadly and at least 69 cause cancer, some of these cancer-causing chemicals include the following : Acetaldehyde, Aromatic amines, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo[^5;]pyrene, Beryllium (a toxic metal), 1,3"Butadiene (a hazardous gas), Cadmium (a toxic metal), Chromium (a metallic element),Cumene, Ethylene oxide, Formaldehyde, Nickel (a metallic element), Polonium-210 (a radioactive chemical element), Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Tobacco-specific nitrosamines, Vinyl chloride. This matters as we are guaranteed the safest possible environment by the government, and with such dangerous chemicals polluting our air, the cleanest possible environment cannot be achieved without the banning of smoking. Therefore, we must ban smoking.

II. Second-hand smoke kills innocent bystanders.
Second-hand smoke does not discriminate. It will not choose to slowly kill the smoker, nor will it choose to not let itself into a bystander's lungs, and this is the problem. All people in all places have the right to health, this, according to the UN, means that governments must generate conditions in which everyone can be as healthy as possible. Second hand smoke generated from cigarettes however, directly violate this right by contributing to making an unhealthy environment, an environment that from which a lot of people die from. In this case, governments have to ensure healthier environments around the world starting with the ban of smoking. Data provided by the WHO, for example, shows that more than 600,000 premature deaths occur every year just from exposure to second-hand smoke, and more than 5 million from direct smoking. In other words, the right to health of innocent bystanders are being offended by smokers, this is why the proposition strongly believes that it is an uttermost responsibility for governments to ban smoking.
lannan13

Con

Alright, I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate, 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.

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%. [8] 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." [8]

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: 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. [9] 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. (http://www.freerepublic.com...)
9. (https://www.heartland.org...)
Debate Round No. 2
preprurmind

Pro

preprurmind forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

Okay, so I've escentially addressed why smoking is biased and how it's over blown in my last round, so this round I'll be focused on uncovering the shocking truth on second hand smoking. I'll be brief though to be fair for my opponent.

A recent study done by the National Cancer Institute found that out of 76,000 women that there is NO significant link between second hand smoking and cancer. “Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer,” said Patel. “The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm." [1] Here we can see that these effects are minisuel and when we apply to what I shown last round we can see that this is entirely over blown now.




Sources
1. ( http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org...)
Debate Round No. 3
preprurmind

Pro

preprurmind forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.

Thank you and please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by preprurmind 2 years ago
preprurmind
I see, ok then.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Oh that, no, I was typing an argument and deleted a portion of what I was typing since it didn't make sense and seemed to skew off topic.
Posted by preprurmind 2 years ago
preprurmind
Also, do note the missing segment of your first argument, I see that you've copy and pasted parts of it from your previous debate, but please provide the complete argument next time.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Well if you want to go at it like a Neanderthal, then yes. It's more of a person's choice thing though.
Posted by preprurmind 2 years ago
preprurmind
Point for information : Are you suggesting that smoking cigarettes should not be banned because it's a person's fault for not avoiding it?
Posted by preprurmind 2 years ago
preprurmind
Sorry, busy with school, will definitely do this tomorrow, thanks for accepting!
Posted by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
ClashnBoom
When I saw this I thought utherpenguin did it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Tough 2 years ago
Tough
preprurmindlannan13Tied
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: It is poor conduct to forfeit 2/4 rounds of a debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
preprurmindlannan13Tied
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: Forfeit.