The Instigator
espinosa5644
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Isaiah68
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

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...
Isaiah68
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,168 times Debate No: 76199
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

espinosa5644

Pro

I support smoking bans. I am so happy a lot of countries are banning smoking in public places. I don"t smoke cigarettes but I grew up in a house of cigarette smokers. I am proud to say that tobacco smoking is one habit I did not pick up. I"m sure everyone has smelled that unpleasant odor of a cigarette, whether you are a smoker or not. The smoke you are inhaling is considered secondhand smoke, which is not good for you. "Exposure to secondhand smoke remains an alarming public health hazard" (Msn.com). I don"t understand how something that is well known to kill people is legal. Smoking has bad effects. Exposure to secondhand smoke can cause an individual to have an asthma attack. Preschool aged children are also at risk for new cases of asthma. Although smoking is a person"s right, it is also an inconvenience to us non " smokers being exposed to the dangerous risks of our health and our children"s health. Some smokers have no respect for non-smokers. Cigarette smoke is a well- known air pollutant. Secondhand smoke is when a nonsmoker involuntarily inhales cigarette smoke. Second hand smoke is just as bad as actually smoking a cigarette. Secondhand smoke can be very hazardous to a non-smokers health. "Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it is responsible for an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers, about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non- smoking adults, worse asthma and asthma"related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children, between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (lung and bronchus) in children under 18 months of age, with 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and in the United States, the cost of extra medical care, illness, and deaths caused by secondhand smoke are over $10 billion per year" (Cancer.com). Some advantages of banning smoking in public places protect adults that do not smoke and/or their children.
Isaiah68

Con

I'm not going to attempt to argue against cigarettes being terrible for people. I too wish they were gone. However, I have a two prong argument: 1. As much as we all want to see people stop killing themselves, individual liberty it paramount. Government intrusion is already beyond words. They are involved in every aspect of our lives now. With the Government being just a little out of control at the moment, because it is ran by a bunch of sorority girls with no life experience, handing them anymore power is a bad idea. Not too mention,

2: If the Government bans something, all we effectively did is create a criminal enterprise. There is now a black market for cigarettes. Can you imagine that impact? The amount of people that smoke in this country? What would be the penalty? Your going to have 16, 17 year old kids with records because of cigarettes. You are going to tie down Police even more than they are with this ridiculous drug war we've been fighting for years.

Oh I forgot to mention even after all of that, people will still be smoking.
Debate Round No. 1
espinosa5644

Pro

okay what if we put an area for smokers in each town?
1. have an age limit.
2. have security
3. make it welcoming so smokers are more open to the idea

smoking around children isn't right and it can cause health problems for them. even if they are not legit smoking.
Isaiah68

Con

I can get behind the idea of non smoking areas in public places. But remember how much that would cost Nation wide. Who would pick up the bill? You better believe at. Payers will. I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of legislation that you can't smoke in certain areas or around children. But an outright ban would prove to be more harmful than anything.
Debate Round No. 2
espinosa5644

Pro

i suppose you are right just as you probably have more knowledge then me for debating for i am just beginning but i don't even get why cigarettes are made. They harm/ kill people and sometimes the people who are addicted to them get aggressive or rude when they haven't had a smoke for a while. i myself have been a victim of the aggression and my mom would hurt me if she hadn't smoked for a while.
Isaiah68

Con

I completely agree with that. However, Sometimes even with our best intentions, adverse results can occur.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
espinosa5644Isaiah68Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes that we shouldn't ban smoking altogether, rather have restrictions on where smokers can be. Thus, arguments to con.