We should end Smoking

For a long time, people had varying views about whether or not to make smoking illegal. In 2000, in the United States, approximately 440,000 persons die of a cigarette smoking-attributable illness, resulting in 5.6 million years of potential life lost, $75 billion in direct medical costs, and $82 billion in lost productivity. Smoking should be illegal because its deadly and raises medical costs for everyone

The resolution says "we" should end smoking, implying that a group of individuals ought to make a decision for other individuals who do want to continue smoking.

Pro mentions that 440,000 people die as a direct or indirect result of smoking cigarettes annually. However there are approximately 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States annually [1] -- does that mean automobiles ought to be illegal? A lot of people die from obesity. Should sweets be illegal? Obviously we have a standard of freedom in this country and we allow people to make decisions for themselves regarding their own health and body. If it costs them their own life and money, that's their responsibility/ fault/ prerogative.

While my opponent mentions raising medical costs for everyone, that would not necessarily be so if we had a strictly private health insurance and medical system. If society wishes to employ socialized medicine, then they must live with the consequences of those who choose to smoke cigarettes or weigh 500 pounds or engage in other risky behavior impacting their costs.

[1] http://www.car-accidents.com...

First of all thank you for accepting my argument

Con says that there are approximately 6.4 million auto accidents in the United States annually. Has Con looked how the auto accidents happened? Approximately 30% of California's auto accident's deaths are from drunk driving. Drunk driving is something all ready illegal, so I will not bother debating you about that.

Also how does smoking raise costs for everyone?
Smoking raises medical costs for everybody. "A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people a lifetime. [1]" Why does it cost more for healthy people? "The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer. [1]" Because of smoking, smokers and nonsmokers have to pay health care costs.

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

Thanks, Pro.

Pro first notes that drunk driving is responsible for 30% of California's driving accidents, and drunk driving is already illegal. A few things: First, Pro provides no source for this statistic. Second, we have no reason to accept statistics from California alone randomly (?). Third, this has little relevance to my actual point. In the last round I made the argument that just because a lot of people die from car accidents doesn't mean cars should be illegal. Similarly just because people die from smoking related effects doesn't mean smoking should be illegal.

Perhaps I should give a few more analogies. For example, a lot of people are allergic to peanuts, don't know it and die upon ingestion. Should peanuts be illegal? A lot of people are obese. Should we criminalize junk food? Some people get violent when listening to certain music. Should we not allow particular types of music to be played? Quite obviously I advocate personal responsibility; I'm waiting for Pro to respond to that direct argument.

Next, Pro contends that thin and healthy people live longer than fat and unhealthy people (quite obviously) and thus smoking should be illegal since it's unhealthy. However Pro's own source completely NEGATES his point! The article he cites points out that since smokers die about 10 years earlier than non-smokers, their premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings, and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net SAVINGS of 32 cents [1]! This means that people smoking is GOOD for the economy. Again Pro's very own source just completely destroyed his own contention. In fact Pro himself argued in my favor. He pointed out that costs for smokers were about $326,000 compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people. In other words, costs for healthy people were MORE.

Furthermore, the fact that cigarettes can be as expensive as up to $13 a pack [2] for a product that costs pennies to make proves that smokers are being taxed incredibly high as a 'punishment' for smoking. The fact that they are taxed for making what some deem a bad personal decision is abhorrent in the first place; however, considering the tax is so high it would - as the article suggests - actually be ripping off most of the smokers.

I'd also like to bring up a new argument: Pro never mentioned what exactly he wanted to be illegal to smoke. For instance, smoking crack is probably more dangerous than smoking pot. I'll assume he's referring to smoking ALL substances then, in which case I'd point out that people could easily eliminate the harms and dangers of smoking by smoking with a vaporizer.

By vaporizing, you don't consume the the chemicals that smokers inhale - toluene, benzene, carbon monoxide, etc. Because it doesn't involve combustion, it doesn't produce the unwanted combustion by-products that smoking does. Thus, cancer-causing agents are eliminated and smoking is much healthier. Vapor is also much cooler than smoke, and therefore less damaging to throat and lung tissue [3].

If the risks associated with smoking can be greatly reduced, and smokers also contribute positively to the economy, then why should we end smoking? That coupled with individual rights and freedoms ought to negate the resolution sufficiently.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[2] http://globalgrind.com...
[3] http://www.articlesbase.com...

Good job mate.. Thanks for tricking me

I'm confused, as I did not do anything to trick my opponent...?

Please extend all of my arguments.

Thanks for the opportunity to debate anyway, Pro, and good luck.