Tobacco Smoking Should be Completely Outlawed.
Debate Rounds (3)
Tobacco is a disease. Many people claim it's a victimless drug which is simply not true. You aren't only hurting yourself you are hurting people near you. Family, Friends, Strangers can all be affected by smoking. Diseases spread just like smoking tobacco does.
Some may argue it's a choice, you don't have to do it. This is true to a certain point. Some with a low amount of will power can be pressured into doing something even if they don't want to.
Tobacco has literally no good use intellectually or physically. It is not used for any health benefits or reliefs of pain ect.
The Tobacco industry is costing the US government billions. All the health effects are cutting into the tax payers money for health insurance and cutting into the governments money to help them for something that could of been prevented with a simple law.
Tobacco is a dangerous drug and a complete waste of time. It hurts others, and is preventable. It's a choice that when starts can have an effect on others to make them start smoking too. Tobacco smoking has no health benefits. It's hurting the economy. Smoking Tobacco should be outlawed.
I will be taking Con in this debate.Being a non-smoker myself, I will not argue that smoking cigarettes is good for health, but will merely explain to you why it should not be completely outlawed.
I completely agree that Smoking is harmful for health and it should be banned in *public* places as it exposes other non-smokers to a variety of carcinogens.I will also say it is morally wrong to smoke cigarettes as it harms one's body, which is a God given gift.
Nevertheless, i still feel *all* drugs should not be controlled by the government as what poison I put inside my body is none of the Government's business.This is why it must be tolerated as a necessary byproduct of freedom of choice, just like how pornography and prostitution are tolerated in most civilised societies.
I'll give you another anology, Junk food(Fast foods) like Burger King,KFC etc are the leading cause of Obesity and heart disease in the western world.Obesity has a much bigger impact than tobacco smooking as it affects even small children. Junk food (like tobacco) has little or no nutrients other than a lot of fat and a killer dose of carbohydrates.Many people(especially obese children) woulld benefit if a ban was passed on Junk food.
But I am sure you would agree that the government must not ban Junk food as it is aginst the basic idea of individual liberty that many countries are based on.
Frankly speaking, the government is not a grandmother to tell it's citizens what they can and cannot consume. Unless there is proof of a direct link between the substance and violent anti-social behaviour that can harm other citizens. it should not be banned.
Also Nicotine, the main psychoactive agent in tobacco has been used to treat certain conditions like ADHD(Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) as well as certain cases of colon infections.It also improves mental function if used infrequently, provided the user does not get addicted.As much as i hate to write these things down, they are facts that cannot be ignored.
Tobacco companies also generate a lot of Tax revenue each year.The government is already spending billions to control drug abuse, banning it will put a further strain on its resources, and will not really work.Many of those who smoke weed(like me) will tell you that banning it will actually deregulate distribution, and make it cheaper and more easily available for teens.Banning cigarettes would be a disasterous idea if you really want to reduce its effects in the country.
Thus, cigarettes should be controlled, and the government should inform it's citizens about its harmful effects, but it should not be banned.
3, http://en.wikipedia.org...; - read the medical uses section in this one.
In my argument I will be addressing your first point first. You say "Nevertheless, I still feel *all* drugs should not be controlled by the government" Assuming you mean literally every drug, are you willing to say you don"t think bath salts should be banned? I don"t think I need to remind anyone what bath salts have done. Drugs effect other people.
You then go on to say "what poison I put inside my body is none of the Government"s business." I beg to differ, I believe there is a certain point when the government should intervene. This point is when people attempt to eat other people"s face.... Drugs should be banned by the government to ensure the safety of our nation. It should not be tolerated as a byproduct of freedom of choice like you later say. I believe we should have freedom of choice. I believe we should have the right to own a gun. However, drugs that effect other people should be banned.
You bring up the argument that there are worse things than cigarettes that are legal. You bring up that fast food"s obesity is worse cause it affects children, " Obesity has a much bigger impact than tobacco smoking as it affects even small children." You fail to realize smoking also effects small children. Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of secondhand smoke because they are still developing physically, have higher breathing rates than adults, and have little control over their indoor environments. If their parents smoke they almost always experience the parent"s second hand smoke. A lot more kids who experience second hand smoking experience asthma. Also there has been an increased rate in middle ear infections.
You say, "Frankly speaking, the government is not a grandmother to tell its citizens what they can and cannot consume. Unless there is proof of a direct link between the substance and violent anti-social behaviour that can harm other citizens. It should not be banned." First, I"d like to focus in on how you say the government should not ban a substance if it does not contain something that makes someone have violent anti-social behavior that can harm other citizens. I fail to see why something needs to have violent anti-social behavior that can harm other citizens. Marijuana is banned and it doesn"t produce violent anti-social behavior that can harm other citizens. Alcohol is banned before the age of 21 in America. Alcohol if anything promotes social behavior and thus it"s banned. Overall, what I"m saying is a drug shouldn"t need to promote violent anti-social behavior to be banned. Smoking tobacco can promote anti-social behavior too. It"s banned from most public places so if one would want to smoke they are inclined to go somewhere private. Tobacco smoking also harms other citizens including family and friends and even random pedestrians walking on the street.
You say, "Nicotine, the main psychoactive agent in tobacco has been used to treat certain conditions like ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) as well as certain cases of colon infections. It also improves mental function if used infrequently, provided the user does not get addicted. As much as i hate to write these things down, they are facts that cannot be ignored." Just because something has been used before to treat something doesn"t mean it should still be used. With the technology today many other things can treat ADHD. Vyvanse for example. I"m also not sure why you"d make the argument that nicotine should not be banned because it helps medicate people. Marijuana is banned in 48 states and in those 48 states can be prescribed for medical usage with a license. What I"m saying is Nicotine can still be banned for the general public and at the same time be used to treat ADHD.
You create a solid point by stating, "Tobacco companies also generate a lot of Tax revenue each year. The government is already spending billions to control drug abuse, banning it will put a further strain on its resources, and will not really work. Many of those who smoke weed (like me) will tell you that banning it will actually deregulate distribution, and make it cheaper and more easily available for teens. Banning cigarettes would be a disastrous idea if you really want to reduce its effects in the country." Keep in mind, you would aid the government by banning cigarettes because there are about 92 million dollars being spent because of emergency room situations started by smoking cigarettes. However the pros of banning smoking immensely outweigh the cons.
You also are forgetting Tobacco smoking hurts the environment. Just look around. They're everywhere. In 2005, an estimated 135 million pounds of cigarette butts were dumped into the U.S. environment it is estimated that 1.69 billion pounds of cigarette butts end up as waste each year. A study conducted by the California Department of Transportation found that cigarette butts make up 34 percent of the total waste captured in California. The production of cigarettes is very damaging to the environment. It is estimated that one tree is consumed for every 300 cigarettes produced - that's one tree for every one and a half cartons.12 Considering 5.6 trillion cigarettes are produced annually worldwide, tobacco devours about 18.6 billion trees every year.
To sum up, smoking should be banned. Smoking hurts child health. Smoking hurts other people via passive smoking. Smoking pollutes the environment and uses valuable resources doing so. Smoking has been proven to help ADHD, however there are other methods that should be used. Doctors don"t even prescribe tobacco products for ADHD. Although it may generate tax revenue, we all should agree a ban on smoking immensely outweighs the cons. Just because we have worse issues than tobacco smoking does not mean we should still keep smoking.
CynicalDiogenes forfeited this round.
Complexity forfeited this round.
I sincerely apologise for forfeiting the previous round.Due to personal reasons i was unable to come on-line for a while.
That said, you seem to have misunderstood a few of the points i made.
1. I always said that the government should ban a substance if it causes Violent anti-social behaviour, that harms *other* citizens.Even you seem to agree to this.But cigarettes when smoked in private do not do that so my contention still stands.
If the government should ban it because of the harm it does to the smokers, then it might a well ban Junk food that affects even more people.
Your 'bath-salts' example caused the user to attack another person, so even i agree it should be controlled.Governments are beginning to understand how harmless marijuana is. This is why it has become fully legalised even for recreational use in 4 US states and for medical use all over the world.
Alcohol impairs judgement and makes people more violent.Bar-fights all over the world are common.There is even a term 'Dutch-courage' in the english language used to describe this violent behaviour.That is why it needs to be controlled.
2.I don't see how emergency room situations are caused by smoking cigarettes,but even if it did, that is not enough reason to ban something.Alcohol causes many accidents, bar-fights, drunk-driving accidents etc. but nobody calls for banning alcohol as the government realised that it was pointless in the 20's and 30's.It just ended up making a few Mobs like the Italian Mafia and some bootleggers really wealthy.Which is why alcohol became legal again in the US.
3.Using Vehicles also causes damage to the environment,but the government can't force people to use public transport.This is simply none of the government's business.The government can warn citizens about the the effects.It can't force citizens to do things that may seem good for the environment, unless there is an imminent threat.A nanny-state is not in the interests of anybody, and runs contrary to the lofty Ideals of individual liberty and freedom of choice that many democratic countries are based on.
To conclude, A smoking ban would cost the government Billions of dollars to enforce, can never be enforced effectively and will only result in illegal groups making a lot of money.Those who used to be honest tax-paying smokers will now be forced to make contact with illegal dealers and will be exposed to a lot of other illicit activities.All the arguments that you gave, (about it harming the environment,Harming smokers etc) stand refuted.
I still say, smoking should be banned in *public* places, where it can harm other non-smokers, as well as discouraged through public awareness programs.It should not be banned.
I urge you to vote con!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.