The Instigator
annhasle
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
joshuaXlawyer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Tobacco Rights

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 3 votes the winner is...
annhasle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,360 times Debate No: 15133
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

annhasle

Pro

Hello DDO. As joshuaXlawyer and I have become friends, we have realized that we disagree on a good number of issues. I look forward to a wide variety of debates between the two of us as we hone our skills and share our opinions. I thank him for his eagerness in debating a topic that I feel is easily dismissed. And I hope that during voting, descriptive RFD’s will be given so we understand where we can grow as debaters and become stronger in persuasion.

Position:

As Pro, I will be putting forth the case that tobacco rights should be protected but still regulated to an extent. In round 2, when arguments are put forward, I will be more clear about the regulation I find to be necessary.

Terms:

Round 1 is simply for definitions and agreeing to terms. Once round 2 commences, we will both put forward our arguments. Any arguments or contentions that are dropped during the debate by either side should count against them when our fellow users are voting. I ask that no new arguments be put forth in the last round.

Definitions:

Tobacco: the prepared leaves, as used in cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. [1]

Right(s): a legal principle considered as an underlying cause of… justice. [2]

Regulate(d): to control or direct by a rule, principle, method [3]

Sources:

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...

Let the debate begin!


Vote Pro.

joshuaXlawyer

Con

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.
Nicotine is highly addictive. Smoke containing nicotine is inhaled into the lungs, and the nicotine reaches your brain in just six seconds.

This is my add on defintion for tobacco, this is the only definition i will provide.

I will argue that the use of tobacco helps no one, provides no benefit but for over taxation on a product that kills and keeps killing. Kills the user and those around him/her and as a government we must protect our people and stop them from killing themselves with these made to be addictive drug and ban tobacco.

I will now wait for round Two's ;P
Debate Round No. 1
annhasle

Pro

Thanks for the reply, Joshua.

As Pro, I will be putting forth the case that tobacco rights should be protected but still regulated to an extent. The only regulation I support is the law which allows only 18+ year olds to purchase tobacco products. Outside of that, the government has no right to step in and dictate what its citizens are smoking. I will keep my first round brief to allow for full expansion on my points in the next round when my opponent's defense has also been put forward.

>> PRO ARGUMENTS <<

1. RIGHTS

The justification that the government cares about our health is a weak one. Even if it were true, that still gives them no ability to regulate what we eat, drink or smoke when it is legal. Would you support the government setting a limit on you of four Big Macs a week because they were worried about your health? Of course not. You'd tell them you have your own privacy and that your health is no concern of theirs. The government has no legal right to regulate the consumption of legal products by federal or state law. To do so would be infringement on the rights of the people to act within their own authority as individuals and choose what they deem to be appropriate. The only justifiable regulatory actions would be an age limit which has been implemented for the last 13 years. [1]

And just like oppressive regulation of tobacco would be unfair when it is legal, abolishing it altogether would be even more disastrous. What would be the justification – it's unhealthy? That brings me to my second point…

2. HARMFUL TO HEALTH

We all know that smoking cigarettes has been linked to lung cancer, lung diseases, numerous cancers and cardiovascular disease. But let's compare that to fast food and other processed foods.

SMOKING:
-Respiratory Disease
-Cancer
-Cardiovascular Disease
-Lung disease
-Heart disease
-Stroke
[2]

FAST FOOD:
-Obesity
-Heart Disease
-Cancer
-Stroke
-Asthma
-Liver disease
[3]

The truth is, many things are detrimental to our health. Without moderation, even fruit can have harmful side effects such as dental decay, osteoporosis, wasting of muscle tissue, inability to maintain a healthy weight, chronic fatigue, skin problems, thinning hair, weakening nails, and excessive irritability [4]. These two examples show the overall ineffectiveness of the "smoking is bad for you" argument that the government tries to put forth. Many things are bad for you but that is no justification to taking away personal liberties.

Now, many also worry about second-hand smoke which has led to smoking being banned in public areas and work places. This is justifiable as long as the proprietor is putting forward the regulations and not through the use of federal law. The US has property rights for this very reason – to protect the interests of the business owner. If they feel that smoking will harm their patrons, which will cause less of them to return, then they would rush to ban smoking. The point is, property rights are more than enough to regulate exposure to smoking. [5]

3. TAXES

The revenue from the taxes on Cigarettes in 2008 raised $16,575,613 overall. [6] And this was before the Obama tax increase which bumped up the previous 2008 excise tax from $0.39 to $1.01 per pack. [7] With our economy as horrible as it is at the moment, could we really afford losing something which brings in so much revenue?

>> CONCLUSION <<

In conclusion, tobacco rights should be protected by the government since there is no logical justification to their outlaw. Property rights are efficient enough to limit exposure, with no help form the government. And even though health risks are inevitable, you could say the same from eating fast food, fruit or processed cheese. But the biggest advantage to the existence of tobacco is the money brought in by exploiting the addictions of smokers. There's no way we could lose all that revenue without a crippling effect.

Resolution Affirmed.

Vote Pro.

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.sixwise.com...
[3] http://www.cdc.gov...
[4] http://drbenkim.com...
[5] http://www.matrixbookstore.biz...
[6] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
joshuaXlawyer

Con

I will now attack her case and put mine in the attacks.

1. RIGHTS

My lovely opponent says that the government does not care about our health, that we are just here for well what?
I would like to look at Hobbes social contract where as any government is establish for the purpose of protect the citizens from the selves and others harm.
If the government didn't care about our health why have cops? To protect us.
Why have these regulations on drugs and the FDA's approval.
Why have all these commercials telling kids not to smoke on television?
The D.A.R.E program in elementary school telling kids how bad drugs and that they shouldn't do them?
Government funded rehabs, illegal drugs such as crack cocaine and others are illegal because they are deadly to your mental health and addictive.
yes, the government has no interest protecting its people from health problems do they.
My opponent also says the part about the big Mac and that the government would not regulate legal items,
I ask why not, in bars after you have drank so much they cut you off, why couldn't a person ask 2 questions before handing them their big Mac like : Sir how many of these do you have a week? he says 30, Then I'm sorry I'm not allowed to sell you this sorry would you like something more health on the menu?

The crisis is obesity. It�€™s the fastest-growing cause of disease and death in America. And it�€™s completely preventable.
Nearly two out of every three Americans are overweight or obese.
One out of every eight deaths in America is caused by an illness directly related to overweight and obesity.
Still this is off the real topic of tobacco, My opponent has been leaving out why tobacco isn't like Big Macs either.
Tobacco is addictive , very addictive, its not like picking up a bag of chips and going omg I can stop man I need more man every five minutes. Nor does big mac's cause second hand smoke that effects everyone around you.

2.Health risk
Again she's comparing fast food to smoking which as I have said earlier that tobacco is nothing like them yes both can have bad effect but fast food does not make you crave it for the rest of your life.
Tell me which is harder smokers, to put down your sandwich or to throw away a good camel crush, plus does eating yourself to death effect others health? Second hand smoke kills others around you as well.

"Now, many also worry about second-hand smoke which has led to smoking being banned in public areas and work places. This is justifiable as long as the proprietor is putting forward the regulations and not through the use of federal law. The US has property rights for this very reason �€" to protect the interests of the business owner. If they feel that smoking will harm their patrons, which will cause less of them to return, then they would rush to ban smoking. The point is, property rights are more than enough to regulate exposure to smoking."

What about at home? guy smokes and with his two new little babies born 3 weeks ago letting them effect the children , government can't regulate that. Also if it is as you say a business man would lose money for having a non smoking sign so this makes them more inclined not to.

ADDING MORE FACTS ABOUT CIGS
1.Sugar and cocoa are often added to cigarettes, a fact many diabetic smokers are unaware of.c
2.Urea, a chemical compound found in urine, is added to cigarettes for extra flavor
3.Women in the United States increasingly began smoking publicly in the 1920s when the cigarette was adopted by advertisers as a symbol of equality, rebellion, and women�€™s independence.k Currently, cigarette smoking kills an estimated 178,030 women in the United States annually.b
4.Pregnant women who smoke are more likely to deliver not only low birth weight babies but also highly aggressive children.j
5.A British survey found that nearly 99% of women did not know the link between smoking and cervical cancer.j
6.Within 20 minutes of quitting smoking, a person�€™s blood pressure returns to normal. Within one year, the chance of suffering a heart attack decreases by half.i
7.Tobacco smoking, particularly cigarette smoking, is the single-most preventable cause of the death in the United States.i
8.Every cigarette smoked cuts at least five minutes of life on average, which is roughly the time it takes to smoke one cigarette.i

3. TAXES
To this whole statement id like to say that without people alive or citizens alive to pay taxes there would be less revenue since the stuff we sell them kills them.

My case.

Has anyone notice that it seems like cigerrete companies target kids?With names like Kauai Kolada, Caribbean Chill and Twista Lime, the products sound like refreshing carbonated beverages. But these are candy-flavored cigarettes and their manufacture and marketing very much look like they are targeting children. The fact is smoking has always effected children all smokers right now started before the legal age of 18. These so called regulations and in the long run having no tobacco at all will be beneficial to society in the long run.
Debate Round No. 2
annhasle

Pro

Thanks for the reply, Joshua.

>> REBUTTALS <<

1. Government

1a. My opponent outlines an interesting case here but it is with a central flaw: the government protects us from harm with malicious intent or reckless endangerment. Smoking tobacco is neither. Smoking cigarettes is inflicting harm the same way eating unhealthy and artificial tanning inflicts harm. And regardless of my opponent supporting a fast food chain questioning the amount of items being consumed weekly by its patrons, the fact that such a policy is not implemented is important. Why? Since it shows that the government will only protect us from harm which we do not inflict on ourselves with the central premise of feeling pain.

1b. Actually, eating habits and obesity is quite relevant. Fast food is also addictive [1] and can be harming to those around you. For example, let’s say I am hungry and take my children out to eat at the local fast food place. I am now contributing to my child’s unhealthy food habits [2].


2. Health risk


Again she's comparing fast food to smoking which as I have said earlier that tobacco is nothing like them yes both can have bad effect but fast food does not make you crave it for the rest of your life.”

This is has been refuted above.


“What about at home? guy smokes and with his two new little babies born 3 weeks ago letting them effect the children , government can't regulate that. Also if it is as you say a business man would lose money for having a non smoking sign so this makes them more inclined not to.”


If the man is smoking around his children which leads to them being sick, he can be prosecuted for abuse. Also, the business man will most likely lose more money with a smoking allowed sign since the majority of the population does not smoke tobacco. [3]



ADDING MORE FACTS ABOUT CIGS


These facts might support the choice to not smoke but in no way supports the government revoking the rights to smoke tobacco. I could list the detrimental effects of fast food or even CO2 but that wouldn’t be a case as to why the government should ban McDonalds and Exxon Gas.



3. TAXES

“To this whole statement id like to say that without people alive or citizens alive to pay taxes there would be less revenue since the stuff we sell them kills them.”


Obviously cigarettes do not immediately kill the smoker so this point is moot.


>> CONSLUSION <<

In summary, the links between Fast Food and tobacco are astonishing since both are addictive and affect those around you. However, if you support the government banning tobacco then you must also support the government banning all fast food chains since it follows the same logic. This would be even more detrimental to the economy overall and would violate business rights.


Resolution Affirmed.


Vote Pro.

Sources:

[1] http://www.thatsfit.com...

[2] http://www.sciencedaily.com...

[3] http://www.americanheart.org...

joshuaXlawyer

Con

1. Government

"1a. My opponent outlines an interesting case here but it is with a central flaw: the government protects us from harm with malicious intent or reckless endangerment. Smoking tobacco is neither. Smoking cigarettes is inflicting harm the same way eating unhealthy and artificial tanning inflicts harm. And regardless of my opponent supporting a fast food chain questioning the amount of items being consumed weekly by its patrons, the fact that such a policy is not implemented is important. Why? Since it shows that the government will only protect us from harm which we do not inflict on ourselves with the central premise of feeling pain."

Does the government condon suicide?No it does not in fact if they can they try to keep you from suicide, with suicide hotlines and mental health hospital wings, and if someone even suggest to the police that you are think of suicide they can restrain you, monitor you, and your parent can have you insitutionalized. My opponent lovely as she may be has been going around this whole fast food argument like they are comparable. Yes i agree people may get addicted or have medical problems from MC D's food, however she over looks the fact that ciggerrets are specifcally design with these chemicals to kill you, specifically designed. With these also deadly chemical arsnic a deadly poison found it rat poison. Nicotine to specifically get you addicted put in for such purpose,There are over 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes. 51 of them are known to be carcinogenic. A carcinogen is something that causes cancer. Cancer is a disease that often kills those who have it. So these are knowingly put into a pack of cigs that kill you knowingly.
When you eat a cheese burger is there a chance you might have bad effects yes, but does you burger have arsnic in it? No, does it have any type of cancer causing chemical? No.

"1b. Actually, eating habits and obesity is quite relevant. Fast food is also addictive [1] and can be harming to those around you. For example, let's say I am hungry and take my children out to eat at the local fast food place. I am now contributing to my child's unhealthy food habits [2]."

First off tell me what makes fast food addictive just out of curiosity, Secondly yes you are contributing to unhealthly habits however fast food isn't pumped full of deadly cancer causing chemicals are they more over not everyone who eats at a fast food place will get addicted to the food because it was made to be addictive.

2. Health risk

"Again she's comparing fast food to smoking which as I have said earlier that tobacco is nothing like them yes both can have bad effect but fast food does not make you crave it for the rest of your life."

"This is has been refuted above."
This has been defended above....

"What about at home? guy smokes and with his two new little babies born 3 weeks ago letting them effect the children , government can't regulate that. Also if it is as you say a business man would lose money for having a non smoking sign so this makes them more inclined not to."

"If the man is smoking around his children which leads to them being sick, he can be prosecuted for abuse. Also, the business man will most likely lose more money with a smoking allowed sign since the majority of the population does not smoke tobacco. [3]"

yes, he can be prosecuted but really will a prosecution stop his kids from getting cancer from his smoking? No it won't you might get revenge but the damage has already been done.

3. TAXES

"To this whole statement id like to say that without people alive or citizens alive to pay taxes there would be less revenue since the stuff we sell them kills them."

"Obviously cigarettes do not immediately kill the smoker so this point is moot."

Ok moot point well how about this we are allowing people to kill themselves for money, simply put.
Is that what a government is a money sucking mob boss who says pay your protection money ok here have a cig it will only cause you to have cancer and pay money out the yeng yang for them. No a government obligation is to protect its people, not use them for money.

Her conclusion:
"In summary, the links between Fast Food and tobacco are astonishing since both are addictive and affect those around you. However, if you support the government banning tobacco then you must also support the government banning all fast food chains since it follows the same logic. This would be even more detrimental to the economy overall and would violate business rights."

I object this so called link has been refuted since burgers are not specifically made with deadly chemicals that cause cancer which is in fact more deadly than having a meal at Mc D's and possibly obesity is more curable than cancer will ever be. So we are to allow our people to kill themselves for the economy? Heck legalize hard narcotics then you'll make a killing the economy will be booming geez after you think about legalizing all these harmful drugs would benefit the economy ten fold and who cares if a couple thousand or more die from it as long as the economy prospers.
Debate Round No. 3
annhasle

Pro

1. GOVERNMENT


1a. "Does the government condon suicide?No it does not in fact if they can they try to keep you from suicide, with suicide hotlines and mental health hospital wings, and if someone even suggest to the police that you are think of suicide they can restrain you, monitor you, and your parent can have you insitutionalized."

Suicide is not criminalized but instead the state can take preventative measures if they feel you are in danger of hurting yourself and others with malicious intent ot reckless endangerment, I like I stated before. This is not like cigarettes at all.

1b. "My opponent lovely as she may be has been going around this whole fast food argument like they are comparable. Yes i agree people may get addicted or have medical problems from MC D's food, however she over looks the fact that ciggerrets are specifcally design with these chemicals to kill you, specifically designed. With these also deadly chemical arsnic a deadly poison found it rat poison. Nicotine to specifically get you addicted put in for such purpose,There are over 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes. 51 of them are known to be carcinogenic. A carcinogen is something that causes cancer. Cancer is a disease that often kills those who have it. So these are knowingly put into a pack of cigs that kill you knowingly."

That is the same with junk food though. People will buy the products knowing they are detrimental to health and do not support a healthy lifestyle. This does not prevent them from having the choice to do so – same with cigarettes. If a consumer was barred from everything that has negative affects on health, there would be severe consequences to both the economy and availability of products.


1c. "When you eat a cheese burger is there a chance you might have bad effects yes, but does you burger have arsnic in it? No, does it have any type of cancer causing chemical? No."

That’s not important. Even though chemicals are intentionally used in chemicals to make it addictive and hurtful to your health, that is not grounds to criminalize them since it is the consumers choice. The only thing the state should do is make sure the consumer is educated in those affects so they can make an informed choice.


1d. "First off tell me what makes fast food addictive just out of curiosity, Secondly yes you are contributing to unhealthly habits however fast food isn't pumped full of deadly cancer causing chemicals are they more over not everyone who eats at a fast food place will get addicted to the food because it was made to be addictive."

The high levels of MSG and fats are addictive and harmful to health – these are added however since they increase the chance of the consumer coming back for more. And even if the product isn’t pumped full of carcinogens and other harmful chemicals, it still has the same negative affects over time. To criminalize tobacco on these grounds would lead to the criminalization of fast food since a precedent would be set.


2. HEALTH RISK

2a. "Again she's comparing fast food to smoking which as I have said earlier that tobacco is nothing like them yes both can have bad effect but fast food does not make you crave it for the rest of your life."

And your point is? Craving something for your entire life is not legal grounds for criminalization.


2b.
"This has been defended above...."

Still not proven.


2c. "yes, he can be prosecuted but really will a prosecution stop his kids from getting cancer from his smoking? No it won't you might get revenge but the damage has already been done."

The chances of cancer are not grounds for prosecution. That’s like taking my neighbor to court since his car produces CO2 and I might be hurt when inhaling the fumes.


3. TAXES

"Ok moot point well how about this we are allowing people to kill themselves for money, simply put. Is that what a government is a money sucking mob boss who says pay your protection money ok here have a cig it will only cause you to have cancer and pay money out the yeng yang for them. No a government obligation is to protect its people, not use them for money."

They can protect the people when they have legal grounds to do so. However, such grounds cannot be found in this case since tobacco is the choice of the consumer.


CONCLUSION:

"I object this so called link has been refuted since burgers are not specifically made with deadly chemicals that cause cancer which is in fact more deadly than having a meal at Mc D's and possibly obesity is more curable than cancer will ever be. So we are to allow our people to kill themselves for the economy? Heck legalize hard narcotics then you'll make a killing the economy will be booming geez after you think about legalizing all these harmful drugs would benefit the economy ten fold and who cares if a couple thousand or more die from it as long as the economy prospers."

I’ve already explained the connection between junk food and tobacco. The people are allowed to make decisions for which products they choose to consume – even with disastrous affects since they do so without malicious intent. Until cigarette smoke has been used as a weapon to hurt those around you, there is no legal grounds to criminalize the product.

Resolution affirmed.

Vote Pro.

joshuaXlawyer

Con

Defenses:
1a."Suicide is not criminalized but instead the state can take preventative measures if they feel you are in danger of hurting yourself and others with malicious intent ot reckless endangerment, I like I stated before. This is not like cigarettes at all."

Oh yes cigarettes is not reckless endangerment, your just killing yourself because you addicted to something thats made with nicotine which makes you dependent upon come on really your saying smoking is not putting yourself endanger and others around you. You have to be blind.

1b." That is the same with junk food though. People will buy the products knowing they are detrimental to health and do not support a healthy lifestyle. This does not prevent them from having the choice to do so – same with cigarettes. If a consumer was barred from everything that has negative affects on health, there would be severe consequences to both the economy and availability of products."

Oh junk food again, let me ask you cigarettes are food? No, Drink? No, have any good effects besides give you a nicotine high? No, well at least fast food actually fills you up. Nor are they loaded with carcinogins, and have a slim chance of making you sick unless you actually eat it for break feast, lunch, and dinner. Then again why am i defending fast food? Why not make fast food illegal or make them change their food and make them healthy. These are people profiting off of people by giving the addictions and killing them. When do we draw the line? how about we draw the line at cigarettes, a concoction designed to kill people. You can at least tell food companies to try to make healthier food , can you make cigarettes healthy? No you cannot, they are made to kill people.

1c. "That's not important. Even though chemicals are intentionally used in chemicals to make it addictive and hurtful to your health, that is not grounds to criminalize them since it is the consumers choice. The only thing the state should do is make sure the consumer is educated in those affects so they can make an informed choice. "

Yes, informed choice to smoke a stick like no ones ever been pressured to smoke cigarettes seeing how most smokers smoked before legal age and became addicted, to kill yourself to fit in. Then with cigarettes with their promotions on movies. Its been proven that cigarettes in movies in the past year infulence 100,000 kids to smoke cigarettes. Then they have promotions like appealing to women with brand call divine and lusious with pink packaging. Lets not talk about flavored cigarettes, those have finally become illegal with only menthol left. The only reason cigarettes are legal to day is every congress men/women are all bought out by the tobacco industry.

1d."The high levels of MSG and fats are addictive and harmful to health – these are added however since they increase the chance of the consumer coming back for more. And even if the product isn't pumped full of carcinogens and other harmful chemicals, it still has the same negative affects over time. To criminalize tobacco on these grounds would lead to the criminalization of fast food since a precedent would be set."

If your so concerned about fast food how about opening a debate about that however eaten in moderation is ok and im sure obesity is more curable than cancer. Also maybe fast food companies should be sued, for all these things in their food and after while maybe they will see that they need to change their product but cigarettes are not able to change or be sued they are too rich to powerful in governmental arena. These people live off killing people, fast food not as much a tobacco industry. At least a Big Mac gives some nutrition, cigarettes do nothing but give you an addiction and kill you.

2a. "Again she's comparing fast food to smoking which as I have said earlier that tobacco is nothing like them yes both can have bad effect but fast food does not make you crave it for the rest of your life."

"And your point is? Craving something for your entire life is not legal grounds for criminalization."

Wow yes they are selling cancer sticks that make you addicted and kills you , why is hard narcotic's illegal if we allow cigarettes? They are the same the difference one's legal ones not.

2b. "This has been defended above...."

"Still not proven."

Proven.

2c. "yes, he can be prosecuted but really will a prosecution stop his kids from getting cancer from his smoking? No it won't you might get revenge but the damage has already been done."

"The chances of cancer are not grounds for prosecution. That's like taking my neighbor to court since his car produces CO2 and I might be hurt when inhaling the fumes."

Faulty argument seeing how CO2 don't kill people unless in large concentrations in an enclosed room. Plus I have seen people been taken to court for second hand smoke. If they have presented a clear pressence of danger to cause harm in the future or other wise is a crime.

Ok moot point well how about this we are allowing people to kill themselves for money, simply put. Is that what a government is a money sucking mob boss who says pay your protection money ok here have a cig it will only cause you to have cancer and pay money out the yeng yang for them. No a government obligation is to protect its people, not use them for money."

"They can protect the people when they have legal grounds to do so. However, such grounds cannot be found in this case since tobacco is the choice of the consumer."

Yes, its a person's choice to smoke themselves to death, Nicotine never had anything to do with people doing that now does it. Plus cigarettes laws are not enforce seeing how most smokers which is a common fact that most smokers were below legal age. Also that they were not pressured by friends and other circumstances like second hand smoke addiction.

I object this so called link has been refuted since burgers are not specifically made with deadly chemicals that cause cancer which is in fact more deadly than having a meal at Mc D's and possibly obesity is more curable than cancer will ever be. So we are to allow our people to kill themselves for the economy? Heck legalize hard narcotics then you'll make a killing the economy will be booming geez after you think about legalizing all these harmful drugs would benefit the economy ten fold and who cares if a couple thousand or more die from it as long as the economy prospers."

"I've already explained the connection between junk food and tobacco. The people are allowed to make decisions for which products they choose to consume – even with disastrous affects since they do so without malicious intent. Until cigarette smoke has been used as a weapon to hurt those around you, there is no legal grounds to criminalize the product."

Again i have brought down the connection and shown it for what it really is, also my point about hard narcotics still stands, cigarettes are addictive and kill people everyday. Most smokers at this point wish they could quit but can because they are addictive. I could understand this choice thing if they were not addictive but they are it addiction levels is up there with crack and our blissfully ignorant kids that have been coherced and pressured and have seen a cool advertisment or seen a cool move with a cool character smoking infulences them to at least try it then after that point they can never come back. Addiction cloaked by the word choice, why treat drug addicts anymore it was their choice why not lock them in jail for their "choices".
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 3 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
come on someone vote
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 3 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
just saying i didn't write the resolution
Posted by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
gah, why do people always equate tobacco with smoking? Why can't you outlaw all the chemicals in cigarettes, but leave the tobacco (like the native americans did).
Posted by annhasle 3 years ago
annhasle
Damn, I better start this. Dx
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 3 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Don't forfeit Lols can't wait to see what you post
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
annhaslejoshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won that the health was a weak argument. This was the only thing the con realistically offered so the vote can only go pro. Pro had poor conduct through-out the round, and also offered no sources. Thus I must vote Pro. Con's grammar was also a bit difficult to understand at times. Such as round 2's opening statements.
Vote Placed by Robikan 3 years ago
Robikan
annhaslejoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Pro made very strong arguments and comparisons. Con seemed to have a hard time refuting them, choosing instead to reiterate how bad smoking is for us in each round. If Con had offered reason why the gov't should protect us from ourselves or where that lost revenue could be made up, he would have fared much better.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 3 years ago
tvellalott
annhaslejoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Pro demolished Con. She refuted all of his points, had better sources to support her contentions and her formatting was far superior.