The Instigator
Ike-Jin-Park
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Firewolfman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

This house would not ban smoking

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Ike-Jin-Park
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,876 times Debate No: 28796
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Ike-Jin-Park

Pro

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.
Firewolfman

Con

I accept, and thank my opponent for initiating this debate, and await R2 .
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”.

As both my opponent and I agreed upon, 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.

Whether Con wants to take BOP or burden of clash is up to him.

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...;

Firewolfman

Con

Firewolfman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ike-Jin-Park

Pro

Since my opponent forfeited his round, I wish to give another chance to my opponent. Please do not vote agasint Con just because of his forfeit unless he forfeits other rounds.

I will wait patiently for my opponent's case. Good luck, Con!
Firewolfman

Con

Firewolfman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ike-Jin-Park

Pro

I have found out that Firewolfman's account is no longer active. While I am saddened to know that this debate that I spent considerable time in preparing can no longer continue, I wish Firewolfman would come back to DDO at some point again.

I assume the victory will automatically be given to me.

If anyone would like to challenge me in this motion, please feel free to do so.
Firewolfman

Con

Firewolfman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ike-Jin-Park

Pro

Sadly, this debate ended in a forfeit. Please vote for Pro.

Additionally, I would love to have a debate on this motion. Please challenge me, contact me or leave a comment if you are interested. I am also willing to have multiple debates on the same motion as well. So please feel free.
Firewolfman

Con

Firewolfman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 4 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
Just like how Jarhyn had four debates with the same topic going on simultaneously, I want to try that too. After this debate goes into a voting period, I will set up 2~4 debates with this topic so anyone can come debate against me.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
Pity you had a forfeit on this topic. I haven't done a drugs-based debate in ages so I might be up for this.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 4 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
I guess we can define it just about anywhere and regardless of the location, the argument will remain fundamentally the same. Good luck for you too.
Posted by Firewolfman 4 years ago
Firewolfman
I agree with your definition, and I would also like to use that definition to clarify what our arguments, points, sources, and rebuttals should revolve around. I assume you mean that banning smoking everywhere in the world, if you don't then please say so in a response, and I would appreciate it if you could define the desired location for us to center our arguments around-as different locations have different problems and etc.

Thanks for this debate, and I look forward to debating this topic as this seems like a fun, and a very challenging debate for both sides, good luck Ike-Jin-Park :)
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 4 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
I think there is a fair amount of argument for both-sides on this topic, to ban completely. However, Firewolfman, if you think that this topic is unfair towards your side, let's define ban as to "ban at all or to restrict heavily".
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 4 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
Smoking in public places is pretty much banned already. I am talking about total ban of smoking.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
Not private property or cars.
Posted by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
Everywhere is a public place for none smokers, and the children of smokers.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
Do you mean only in public places, or a total ban on smoking? I would accept if it was only for a ban in public places.
Posted by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
Cant accept, oh well...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Ike-Jin-ParkFirewolfmanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. I was interested in Con's arguments, too.