The Instigator
Ike-Jin-Park
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
TheWalkingDrums
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

This house would not ban smoking #3

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Ike-Jin-Park
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,790 times Debate No: 29147
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Ike-Jin-Park

Pro

My previous debate on this topic was forfeited so here I go again.

I will be the Pro in this motion and I will carry the burden of proof to show why smoking should not be banned.


The rules for each around is as follows.

R1: Acceptance
R2: Arguments from both sides (Only arguments)
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Counter-attacks
R5: Final Argument (without Rebuttals)
I look for a great debate.

I am going to open four debates on the same topic to investigate the aspect in this field more widely.
TheWalkingDrums

Con

Challenge Accepted. Start the argument :)
Debate Round No. 1
Ike-Jin-Park

Pro

INTRODUCTION

Human beings ban activities and object that cause grave harm to the society and individuals. There are laws to ensure members of society do not harm others and these laws are regulated so the purpose of their existence is actually served. This debate comes from this notion, that no one should harm others. Harmful substances such as cocaine and heroin are prohibited since they can ruin lives of people and weaken the fabric of the society. Other than those two, there is endless list of so-called “illegal drugs”. This debate will focus on if cigarette – a substance seen everywhere – should join the league of “illegal drugs”.

The definition of ban in this debate would be if cigarette should be removed completely. In this debate, I will Pro the motion that “This house would not ban smoking”, where I will defend cigarettes. The setting of the debate would not matter because the main essence of this debate would remain identical anywhere. My opponent is free to challenge this place setting though.

ARGUMENT

Though I am not a smoker myself, I firmly oppose the notion of banning smoking due to three reasons: that they are unenforceable, that they limit citizen’s freedom and cigarette industry brings practical benefits.

Argument 1: Unenforceable Nature of the Motion

There are about 43.5 million smokers in the US solely. In the same country, 21.5% of men and 17.3% of women are smokers [1]. Cigarette is undeniable everywhere in modern society. Just about every convenient stores, newsletter kiosks and supermarkets sell tobacco. Cigarette industry is an industry that has a size of few hundreds of billion dollars. In some occasions, cigarettes are also handmade with rolling paper and cigarette leaves. From these factors, we can already see that cigarettes are easily acquired and easily made as well. When cigarette is so abundant in quantity, it is very unrealistic to enforce a cigarette ban. Passing of the ban would primarily be unrealistic. Giant tobacco companies worth billions and billions would oppose the ban with every resource they can afford. For the sake of argument, let’s assume tobacco companies decided to forsake their lucrative business and became philanthropists by miracle. Even then, we face predicament of having to sabotage all tobacco farms and infrastructures. When that happens, incredible amount of stockpile of this new illegal drug would have to be disposed and be taken care of. These few things are already unlikely to happen. But even under assumption that they happen, the ban would still have to be regulated. Are we saying we are going to place police officers in public places to follow track of cigarette smoke and arresting smokers?

Again, for the sake of argument, let us imagine we live in world with cops chasing for cigarette smoke and tobacco companies became nice enough to forsake their multibillion corporations. Cigarette ban would still be ineffective since it will open up a black market. India bans cigarette from other international brands and this action enforced by Indian Government was admitted by the government (Tobacco Institute of Indian States [2]) to only result in an exponential increase of these banned cigarettes being smuggled in. Banning cigarette is fundamentally unenforceable and purposeless. Even by miracle, if total ban of cigarette actualized, the ban would not serve its purpose since market of contraband will emerge as seen in similar case of India.

Argument 2: Individual Freedom

The argument behind the ban of smoking is that cigarettes cause harms. Nevertheless, every single smoker is well aware of danger of cigarette. In many countries, cigarette companies are required to leave a warning message on their cigarette pack regarding the danger of smoking. Often, they are also required to illustrate the message with gore pictures of victims of excessive smoking.









These are some mild examples. It is understandable why this idea of banning cigarette emerged. But it is evident that harm of cigarette is being well-informed to smokers themselves as well. Already, smokers are restricted in many ways so that they do not harm others. By law, smoking in airplane is forbidden. Many public bathrooms have “no smoking” signs. Most restaurants forbid smoking too. Freedom of smokers is already restricted to a level so that they cannot cause grave damage to others. Any further actions against smokers would be persecuting and demeaning the freedom of about 20% of a nation in the case of USA. It is a choice of lifestyle and a personal freedom. Law can prevent smokers from harming others. But law cannot step further and stop responsible adults from harming themselves. Attempting to help smokers from harming themselves can be done with a better alternative of “educating” which also fits the principle of democracy. If a government truly aims to protect smoker, they should consider something that is against the spirit of democracy and is unenforceable in the first place but consider campaign against smoking. The purpose of banning cigarette seems aimless.

Argument 3: Practical reasons to not ban smoking

The fundamental purpose of banning smoking seems to be missing. Not only this, there are also practical harms of banning cigarette. As shown above, cigarette industry is a gigantic industry that brings billions of profit to tobacco companies. Top 6 tobacco companies in US added up together generated about $346.2 billion of market revenue and they profited about $35.1 billion in 2010 [3]. Banning cigarette would place cigarette companies out of business and would also place countless employers of a huge industry out of work. Harm of cigarette companies going bankrupt is not only limited to personal loss of employers. Thriving tobacco industry resulted in astronomical amount of tax revenue. When an industry that thrives collapses, annual tax revenue of about $17 billion will disappear. As soon as total ban on smoking comes into action, all the tobacco companies will disappear along with $17 billion of tax revenue.

CONCLUSION

Banning cigarette is unrealistic. Adding on to that, there are issues with individual rights and freedom of banning smoking if this ban is to be passed. But on top of such a problematic action, there are also practical harms caused by such action. These problems that total ban on smoking carries are too significant and destructive to be seen as collateral damages to solve a social problem. In fact, total ban is not even the best answer if there is a problem to address. All in all, I am proud to oppose a ban that demeans freedom, hurts a country’s economy and is ineffective.

REFERENCES

[1] http://www.cdc.gov...;

[2] http://www.financialexpress.com...;

[3] http://www.worldlungfoundation.org...;

TheWalkingDrums

Con

As Con, I will take side in why should we ban smoking.

I am taking the side in banning smoking due to hazardous effects brought by it. In the community, if there are smokers, even non smokers sometimes are affected. Does not matter the percentage. As for example, in a little community of 50 people, and only 5 people are smoking, 45 of them when inhaled the smoke can be affected little by little. Smoking kills you little by little no matter how good it is for you or for smokers, I mean.

Major points are:
Health effects - Smoking and your Body
"The effects of smoking on human health are serious and in many cases, deadly. There are approximately 4000 chemicals in cigarettes, hundreds of which are toxic. The ingredients in cigarettes affect everything from the internal functioning of organs to the efficiency of the body's immune system. The effects of cigarette smoking are destructive and widespread."

-Toxic ingredients in cigarette smoke travel throughout the body, causing damage in several different ways.
-Nicotine reaches the brain within 10 seconds after smoke is inhaled. It has been found in every part of the body and in breast milk.
-Carbon monoxide binds to hemoglobin in red blood cells, preventing affected cells from carrying a full load of oxygen.
-Cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) in tobacco smoke damage important genes that control the growth of cells, causing them to grow abnormally or to reproduce too rapidly.
-The carcinogen benzo(a)pyrene binds to cells in the airways and major organs of smokers.
-Smoking affects the function of the immune system and may increase the risk for respiratory and other infections.
-There are several likely ways that cigarette smoke does its damage. One is oxidative stress that mutates DNA, promotes atherosclerosis, and leads to chronic lung injury. Oxidative stress is thought to be the general mechanism behind the aging process, contributing to the development of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and COPD.
-The body produces antioxidants to help repair damaged cells. Smokers have lower levels of antioxidants in their blood than do nonsmokers.
-Smoking is associated with higher levels of chronic inflammation, another damaging process that may result in oxidative stress.

And in some accounts,
The Top Ten List of Negative Effects of Smoking:
1. Coughing: Smokers coughing that is. After a not predetermined time of being a smoker, you will begin to experience smokers cough, because your body uses this as a way to try and get rid of the toxins you inhale while smoking.

2. Yellow teeth: many smokers when they realise the state of their smile, that have gone from bright white to almost yellow stop smiling all that much, or try to hide their teeth while smiling.

3. Trouble with blood circulation: After contaminating your blood for a period of time with the smoke you inhale and that therefore gets into your blood stream, your blood will not circulate as freely in your body as it used to, and your arteries will begin to clog. The ares furthest away from the heart, (hands and feet) will be first to get lowered their blood flow, and you will begin to experience cold hands and feet.

4. Lessened glowing of your skin: A healthy skin have a natural glow about, but with the clogged arteries, the lessened blood flow, will slowly make your skin greyer, and more pale than it used to be.

5. Ugly yellow fingertips: The smoke that several times daily gets in contact with your skin at the fingertips, is slowly going to make the fingers on the hand you hold the cigarette with into ugly looking yellow fingers.

6. Lessened ability to smell the lovely flowers: Well maybe you don't really care about the smell of flowers, but another negative effect of smoking is that rather shortly after becoming a smoker, you taste buds and your ability to smell well be severely worse than before. The good news however is that they return rather quickly after quitting.

7. Lessened lung capacity: Your overall fitness levels are determined largely by the capacity of your lungs, and a negative effects of smoking is a slowly deteriorating lung capacity. When I smoked I had a test as I were doing sport at a serious level, but had collapsed during a track test, and were told my lung capacity were well below par for my age group.

8. Lower Energy: When you smoke, your immune system never relaxes for very long. Immediately when smoke gets in your body, the immune system start fighting it, and is therefore working on overdrive so to speak. That extra use of energy has to come from somewhere, and it does. The energy used is taken from your overall energy levels, Along with that, the lesser lung capacity reduces your bodys oxygen intake, which again reduces your energy levels. so you can expect a lower energy level overall from smoking.

9. Bad breath: Often times when I were a smoker I would wake up dry mouthed, and my girlfriend refused to kiss me because of my bad breath. This point should require no further explanation.

10. Less oxygen for your brain: Lower oxygen in your blood also causes the brain to get lesser oxygen then it needs to function optimally. This may cause you to have a worse than average ability to focus on things, and it may also cause dizzy spells.

Those are just some, but there are many reasons to ban it.
That is just my point for now.

But one question lies: What causes cigarette addiction?

Sources: |
http://quitsmoking.about.com...
http://www.itkorner.net...
Debate Round No. 2
Ike-Jin-Park

Pro


I thank my opponent for his argument. I will briefly rebut the argument that Con gave me.




REBUTTAL



All Con said during his second round was that cigarette is harmful. He listed various ways that cigarette can be harmful. In this debate discussing about the total ban of cigarette, there are two things that Con has to show: 1) that harm of cigarette calls for radical action of ban, 2) that the ban is a plausible action. Con failed to fulfill both criteria by only giving medical argument, omitting the explanation as to why such medical factors call for ban. Con’s entire round 2 can be rebutted in different layers. Just about anything can harm one’s health. Smoke from factories, electricity and cars kill people in many ways. Just because something is bad, it does not equal to a ban. Just because cars emit smoke, cause accidents and require factories in the process of manufacture, we do not ban cars since benefit outweighs the harm. Again, smokers are aware of these harms of smoking and yet they still choose to smoke. Moreover, cigarette provides recreational activity to individuals. Additionally, Con failed to combat other benefits that we lose by banning cigarette and benefits we gain from keeping cigarette.


By banning cigarette, we are also hugely limiting freedom and rights of citizen. We are also oppressing industry that worth hundreds of billion dollars, placing workers of this humongous industry out of work and losing billions of tax revenue. Despite all these drawbacks in several aspects, does it still worth to ban cigarette? Con obviously failed to answer this question.



I look forward reading round 3.


TheWalkingDrums

Con

Pro's rebut would be on two points, mainly:
1) Causing bad things = ban?
2) Individual choice
3) Money losing

From my own point of view,
1) Many causes things, but should we ban it?
Well, Con has a point: Cars causes dangers, still, we should not ban it, or factories causes biological harm, yet, they are not ban. I say is that, those are things that when weighed, both positive and negative are equal.

And in cases of cars, car accidents can be avoided through discipline or by different manner, cars cannot be blamed by accidents. In terms of harmful gas emitted, scientists are looking for ways to lessen such harm like by using water as gas.

Factories have discipline as well, though sad to say, sometimes, they don't abide on it.

Cigarettes, however, kills many little by little. I have raised a question though I don't challenge Pro to answer it, so its ok if he does not. What causes cigarette addiction? Well, I don't believe that own choice would, rather, usually, via influence.

If people will learn not to smoke, the next generation, probably, smoking would be eliminated even without banning. However, for some people, smoking is "cool", which therefore, pushes them to do so. Banning and educating people about smoking can help.

No freedom is being harassed.

2) Individual choice

Seems that, I had answered it on the first point. Well, to clear and make details, cigarette smoking is more on influence rather than simply choice. Normally, people won't smoke if they aren't influenced by smokers, unless curiosity pops their mind to do so. As to relate to health, smoking gives harm, which calls for ban. If people will learn not to smoke, they can save huge part in their life.

3) Money losing

Banning cigarette would not mean money loss. As a person engage in business, I can say that more opportunities can come if cigarette would be wipe out from the market. People will learn to seek new opportunities rather than selling cigarettes in the market which kills people.

To go back and clarify all my points:
1) Everything can be harmful, but we need to learn what is useful. Cars can cause harm, but it is useful. Cigarettes, on the other hand, has many negatives which calls for ban.

2) People do not smoke out of individual choice, rather on influence or curiosity. I haven't seen a non smoker who bought a cigarette because suddenly, he/she wants to.

3) Opportunities will arise if cigarette smoking can be ban. Who knows? We can find new ways is using tabacco. Innovation of tabacco products that may even give more benefits instead of turning it into cigarettes.
Debate Round No. 3
Ike-Jin-Park

Pro


I will just begin countering my opponent.



Counter 1: Harm


Con continuously discussed that cigarette is harmful but he never was able to connect that premise to this motion, discussing if there is a legitimate excuse to completely ban cigarette. I will point out how harm that Con talked about does not equal to legal reasons to ban cigarette.


Firstly, the harm that my opponent is talking about is surely exaggerated and radical. As I have mentioned, researches shows on average, smoking habit only can shorten one’s life for about ten years. It is also a truth that it takes a long time for habitual smoker to have recognizable vulnerability to diseases. It takes about 40 years for one to finally have him/her life threatened by cigarette.


Secondly, reasons for “death by cigarette” also include a lot of other factors such as exercising habit, dietary habit, lifestyle and etc. There is so much more than smoking habit. Cigarette is a scapegoat in this situation. What my opponent is doing here is similar to blaming Ford for all deaths caused on road by Ford cars, blaming Heineken for murders and rapes committed by criminals under the influence of alcohol.


Thirdly, the addition of cigarette is drastically different than that of illegal drugs. Though cigarette might be addictive, the addiction is controllable. My opponent’s argument that smoking is no longer a choice will only work in case like cocaine where addiction simply cannot be quit without help. As to cigarette, it is very possible to quit with strong. Indeed there are countless cases where smokers succeed in quitting. It is just that it is hard. When it is so possible to quit on your own, how can one ever claim smokers are no longer smoking on their own volition? The fact that many people fail to quit smoking does not prove anything on my opponent’s premise that smoking is no longer people’s will. Just because many people fail to quit, it does not prove the extremely addictive nature of an object. Many fail losing weight but it does not mean overeating is addictive. There is a reason why gambling, alcohol, game and cigarette are legal when cocaine, heroin and ecstasy are illegal. The essence is the strength of addiction. Those things that are legal can be quitted by one’s volition whereas illegal drugs cannot be quitted without external help. Bottom line, my opponent’s claim that addictive nature of cigarette means that smokers are no longer exercising freedom to smoke falls completely flat. Do you ever see a smoker running desperately to 7/11 to buy a pack of cigarette and suck on them crazily, like how a drug addict might? Smokers are definitely choosing to smoke.



Counter 2: Individual Choice


On matter regarding individual freedom, Con argued since cigarette is so harmful and it is also addictive, tyrannical actions such as total ban of cigarette is justifiable. Both premises that Con’s idea forms on are inaccurate. Firstly, Con argued since cigarette is causing so much death for no reason, it should be banned. Nevertheless, Con failed to show exactly how cigarette is so bad and as bad as other drugs like cocaine. The truth is cigarette is not nearly as bad as drugs categorized as illegal. As I have explained, deaths due to cigarette are highly inflated and inaccurate. But not only that, cigarette usually causes far-future harms. It’s usually senior citizens that die indirectly by smoking. A string of time is taken for one’s continued smoking habit to cause serious harm. By the time cigarette normally affects one’s health substantially; one is most likely already at the age facing death. Research shows cigarette shortens about 10 years of one’s life. That much of harm is not nearly bad as other illegal drugs. Secondly, Con also argued about smoker’s harming the community and how nonsmokers have the right to not be hurt by cigarette smoke. That is exactly why smoking is already prohibited in some public places. I do not see any more intrusion of freedom (stopping them to smoke on streets) justifiable in any means. Smokers are already in situation where they can no longer harm others. Then are we saying we should ban cars since they emit pollutants?


On the side note of my opponent discussing that smokers are the reason why nonsmoker will smoke, I consider that as totally irreverent. Nonsmokers in fact do start smoking out of curiosity but the reason why they smoke does not matter in discussing this motion, if there is practical and moral imperative of banning cigarette.



Counter 3: Economic Benefits


Con marginalized loss of the cigarette industry. However, it is not a minute loss. What else can be said about individuals losing their work and their company that they built their entire lives? And the reason for doing such thing is because smoking contributes in causing disease? Then should we shut all the alcohol companies down because crimes happen under intoxication? Are we saying we should destroy car industry since traffic accidents cause so much accident? How about someone who caused car accident after drinking? We ban both alcohol and car? That is what exactly statement “cigarette should be banned” is analogous to. Just because of its secondary effect that it contributes in causing, existence of cigarette as a whole is being blamed. We know cigarette is not nearly harmful as illegal drugs and it is not the job of government to decide the benefit of smoking. Just like game, it might not have any what my opponent might view was a benefit. But it is part of a hobby and a recreational activity that people should be given right to enjoy. Cocaine and cigarette is different by far. We are not saying we should keep something so dangerous like cocaine in the market. Can any government forbid one’s hobby of drinking until late in the night when it is obvious that hobby is harmful? No. Government has its limit though they have duty to protect its nations. Cigarette does not meet the standard of illegal drugs as I repeat so many times. Then why should we ban it?



I await for my opponent’s next round.


TheWalkingDrums

Con

Countermeasures

1) Harm

Harm from cigarettes is clearly emphasized from the given examples. Pro countered it by stating that even cars and factories and alcohols can do harm, but is not banned, but why cigarettes? I had addressed it that there are things that is useful and that is not useful.

Second, all things can harm, as said, there are things that are useful like cars, though it causes accidents, its all because of the accident itself, not the car. Its the way of driving or other factors, not the car. Alcoholic drinks, on the other hand, has healthy benefits, and moderation can give these benefits. Cigarettes, on the other hand, will do nothing but to harm. Cigarette itself contains toxins that can harm. No matter what you do, when you start smoking cigarette, whether you'll like it or not, you'll have the effects.

2) Individual choice

As said, if smoking will not be promoted, then, it will be eliminated, in fact, even without banning. Cocaine is another matter to be discussed, and pollutants as well. Cars and pollutants, by the way, scientists can make ways to make cars free from pollutants, which would mean, we have the control over the harm brought by the car's pollutants.

Note: The best challenge here is to make a cigarette that will not harm the smoker and non smoker. But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be.

BEFORE ANYTHING MAY GO WRONG AND MISUNDERSTOOD:
"But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be."

I am NOT agreeing with Pro not to ban cigarettes, and the cigarette that is referred to this argument is that usual cigarettes, the one with too much chemicals.

" If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be."
I am referring to the alternate cigarette, but still, it does not mean that I do agree with Pro, as Pro is standing with the usual cigarettes, while my stand here is the alternative cigarette if there will be.

Thanks.

3) Money

Pro seemed to repeat the argument of "ban other things like cars since it causes harm, too". I have addressed that topic anymore, its the "useful vs not that useful". Cigarettes vs Alcohol: Alcohol has benefits IF taken moderately, cigarettes will really harm you even the moment you just tried and even when you inhale the smoke from someone.

Economy and employment may be affected, still, there are more ways just to save this possible workers that can be unemployed, or the best way is that cigarette factories will stop making cigarettes, rather, make a new use for tobacco, or just simply, change their company. With that, no people or workers, or only few will be unemployed.

Thanks and God bless
Debate Round No. 4
Ike-Jin-Park

Pro

I modified from my round in other debates on the same topic since many points were similar.

Essence 1: Harms to the users

Down the bench in this debate, Con continuously discussed that cigarette is harmful but he never was able to connect that premise to this motion, discussing if there is a legitimate excuse to completely ban cigarette. I will point out how harm that Con talked about does not equal to legal reasons to ban cigarette.

Firstly, the harm that my opponent is talking about is surely exaggerated and radical. As I have mentioned, researches shows on average, smoking habit only can shorten one’s life for about ten years. It is also a truth that it takes a long time for habitual smoker to have recognizable vulnerability to diseases. It takes about 40 years for one to finally have him/her life threatened by cigarette.

Secondly, reasons for “death by cigarette” also include a lot of other factors such as exercising habit, dietary habit, lifestyle and etc. There is so much more than smoking habit. Cigarette is a scapegoat in this situation. What my opponent is doing here is similar to blaming Ford for all deaths caused on road by Ford cars, blaming Heineken for murders and rapes committed by criminals under the influence of alcohol.

Thirdly, the addition of cigarette is drastically different than that of illegal drugs. Though cigarette might be addictive, the addiction is controllable. My opponent’s argument that smoking is no longer a choice will only work in case like cocaine where addiction simply cannot be quit without help. As to cigarette, it is very possible to quit with strong. Indeed there are countless cases where smokers succeed in quitting. It is just that it is hard. When it is so possible to quit on your own, how can one ever claim smokers are no longer smoking on their own volition? The fact that many people fail to quit smoking does not prove anything on my opponent’s premise that smoking is no longer people’s will. Just because many people fail to quit, it does not prove the extremely addictive nature of an object. Many fail losing weight but it does not mean overeating is addictive. There is a reason why gambling, alcohol, game and cigarette are legal when cocaine, heroin and ecstasy are illegal. The essence is the strength of addiction. Those things that are legal can be quitted by one’s volition whereas illegal drugs cannot be quitted without external help. Bottom line, my opponent’s claim that addictive nature of cigarette means that smokers are no longer exercising freedom to smoke falls completely flat. Do you ever see a smoker running desperately to 7/11 to buy a pack of cigarette and suck on them crazily, like how a drug addict might? Smokers are definitely choosing to smoke.

Essence 2: Harms to others

Even on this, it is evident my opponent exaggerated and misinterpreted. He enforced the idea of second hand smoking is analogous to murder. I will combat this shortly.

As given from my previous examples, smoking is illegal in public. Law does not protect every freedom. Governments are free to encourage smokers to smoke less and prohibit them to harm others in public but governments cannot intervene more than that since anymore sanction than that, the government will have no legal ground to enforce. As for situations where nonsmokers have to be with smokers, there are so many alternatives. My dad used to be a smoker and he only smoked in one particular room of the house. This is actually very common in families where smoking member smokes in isolation to prevent secondhand smoking.

Essence 3: Individual Freedom – Is the harm enough to marginalize individual freedom?

This is the burden of proof that my opponent carried and failed. I ask voters to focus deeply into this part. He successfully explained some reasons why smoking might be harmful but he never landed those ideas to the motion. This debate was evaluating if there is an enough ground for a government to enforce a total ban based on the status quo. Before I start analyzing this main essence, I would first like to state that there is no problem in the status quo to deal with.

Why shouldn’t cigarette be categorized under illegal drug? The reason is that in many different ways, cigarette is not nearly as harmful as illegal drug. Let alone the fact that cigarette can be quitted with one’s strong will when illegal drug cannot, the harm that illegal drugs cause to human body is incomparable with cigarette. Again, it takes a long-termabuse for one’s life to be susceptible to death. Viewing from the fact that only one country on the entire globe forbids cigarette, countries view the type of harm that cigarette causes to be insufficient ground for a total ban. There are also other things that are legal and should be legal and yet are analogous. For example, alcohol is an unhealthy substance that causes many problems but is perfectly legal. However, we know reasonable usage of alcohol does not cause critical damage to one’s health, and for that reason, alcohols and cigarette should stay legalized. Another analogy is teenage dating and game that are roots to many teenage problems. But does a government forbid teenage dating just because it causes problem? That type of privacy intrusion is not justifiable and is against right to pursue happiness.

Lack of “benefit” does not mean a ban. Smoking is a recreational activity. Con fails to see the reality. If smoking was so painful and not enjoyable, are all smokers’ masochists to put a pain on themselves voluntarily? Also, Con is over relaying on the figure that 70% of smokers want to quit smoking. But majority wanting to quit does not disprove enjoyable nature of smoking. Game addicts will want to quit game but that does not mean games are boring. Put simple, my opponent’s statistics mean nothing. It is not the role of government to decide of a certain recreational activity is pointless or not. Governments do not intervene with personal choice to drink vodka until 3 a.m. in the night though it benefits no one but is harmful just like cigarette. By saying we should ban cigarette, we are also saying such behavior I stated above should be banned too.

What does the court says? On lawsuits where cigarette companies were sued by sick, vast majority of the court verdicts admitted the fact that cigarette contributes in diseases but cigarette companies should not be legally accountable since cigarette itself is nothing to blame. The law does not even force cigarette companies to pay for the loss of individual smokers. That already proves that there are no legal ground for cigarette to be blamed for one’s death from cigarette since the potential harm was warned. Then how can the same law impose a total ban on cigarette? Cigarette is not a scapegoat to start blaming for one’s bad decision. There are social smokers who only smoke on some occasions. If we ban cigarette that is unlike illegal drugs, it opens up window for anything harmful to be banned. Games cause harm to children in many ways and is also addictive but can a government ever force a child not to play any game? Government can protect and try to help out but their action to ban is crossing the line. The spirit of democracy is not where governments babysit the nation.

Essence 4: Money

There is no doubt that the ban will annihilate an industry that worth hundreds of billions and returns multi-billion dollars of tax revenue just in the US. It is unreasonable to undergo such damage and enforce the unenforceable just because of a petty reason that they are harmful. We need to stop blaming others and become responsible.

Conclusion

Blaming cigarette and calling a ban is analogous to blaming Heineken and Ford for death caused by drunk-driving. Cigarette itself does not carry enough harm to be illegal. People should stop finding scapegoats. Please vote for Pro to avoid cigarette companies becoming scapegoats.


Before this ends, I wanted to thank my opponent for engaging in this debate.

TheWalkingDrums

Con

To conclude:

Point One: Harm and Environment

Smoking should be ban, or at least, be discouraged as it harms the health of other people. Eliminating smoking in our culture can help to increase people's health. Imagine a non smoking community, how lovely it would be. Imagine if your future children or your children (if you have) will not be engaged in smoking, that will be a benefit, too. Smoking is not something an individual will look for if he/she does not see it in his/her environment. Its something more on influence, so, if you have a community or a family of non smoker, definitely, smoking won't be part of that person's life.

Smoking is more deadly than alcohol, in fact, alcohol has more benefits than smoking cigarette.

Alcohol: When taken moderately, you can have the benefits
Cigarette: The moment you smoke, the moment you'll receive its deadly toxins little by little. Even when its for first and last, and worse, when you become addicted to it.

2) Banning smoking won't kill Freedom

Banning smoking will only help as it discourages people not to smoke, which would mean, for healthy benefits. The presented argument on Round 2 of mine will show the negative effects of smoking, and if you avoid smoking, then, you are saved from those negative effects.

As also said, smoking is not something a non smoker would just look for, rather, by influence. If people won't even love or embrace smoking in their life, then, the next generation will eventually won't embrace it, too.

3) Money loss or Innovation? Unemployment or Opportunity?

To ban smoking means to look for an alternative use of tobacco in such a way it would be useful. If banning of cigarettes would be implemented, then factories of cigarettes will be encouraged to find alternative - well, the government can help if they want to.

Thanks and God bless to all! :)
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by babyy 1 year ago
babyy
Hello dear, my name is Ester, i came across your profile now.So I decided to stop by an let you know that I really want to have a good friendship with you. Beside i have something special i want to discuses with you, but I find it difficult to express myself here, since it's a public site. I will be very happy, If you can get back to me, through my e-mail iD(esteredmond(at )ymail.c o m)
Posted by TheWalkingDrums 1 year ago
TheWalkingDrums
Raise a correction:

"1) Many causes things, but should we ban it?
Well, CON has a point: Cars causes dangers, still, we should not ban it, or factories causes biological harm, yet, they are not ban. I say is that, those are things that when weighed, both positive and negative are equal."

Change "Con" to "Pro", I do not refer myself to it.
Then, it would be,

"1) Many causes things, but should we ban it?
Well, PRO has a point: Cars causes dangers, still, we should not ban it, or factories causes biological harm, yet, they are not ban. I say is that, those are things that when weighed, both positive and negative are equal."

Thanks and God bless
Posted by Avamys 1 year ago
Avamys
I agree with the Con. As a non-smoker, I know how non-smokers are affected. unless smokers don't exhale when smoking, we'll breath all that second-hand gas we don't want to breathe. Hey, we have a right of not harming our body right? It's not like I can wear a gas mask everywhere.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 1 year ago
Ike-Jin-Park
The links do not work.

Try: http://www.pastebin.ca...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by WesternGuy2 1 year ago
WesternGuy2
Ike-Jin-ParkTheWalkingDrumsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted for pro because there really is no rule saying we should ban cigarrettes We just should no smoke because it is bad We have signs saying it is bad
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 1 year ago
bladerunner060
Ike-Jin-ParkTheWalkingDrumsTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall a quite nice and refreshingly cordial debate. However, Con defeated his own point in the last round where he shifted to "Banned or discouraged". Discouraging is vastly different than banning, and by acknowledging it as a valid option on par with banning, you're conceding that banning isn't necessary. I found few of the arguments Con made compelling enough to justify a ban. Also, I found the "People do not smoke out of individual choice, rather on influence or curiosity. I haven't seen a non smoker who bought a cigarette because suddenly, he/she wants to." argument both insulting and unsound. I have met such smokers, and propose Con simply hasn't conversed with enough to know why all smokers start smoking. While Con established that smoking was bad, that was not the purpose of the debate. The purpose of the debate was to determining whether smoking should be banned, and con fell short of establishing that.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 1 year ago
morgan2252
Ike-Jin-ParkTheWalkingDrumsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had good conduct and good spelling and grammar. However, I feel that con did a little bit better job in terms of refuting his opponent's arguments. Sources to pro because con uses some unreliable sources like about.com. But, in general, it was a very good debate.